Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Mayhill Fowler or Fouler?
There's an ethical question that's gone unasked in this Obama/bitter thing, one that's tangential, but significant. It concerns the way the information was gathered by the Huffington Post's Mayhill Fowler.
As you probably know Fowler got into the off-the-record fundraiser by making a financial contribution (and quite a contribution it must have been, given the venue). Handily she had an undetectable recording device in her purse or hand. Cut from that to Huffpo's "exclusive".
The question is a candidate is entitled to any corners of privacy in this 24/7 YouTube world.
I suspect the answer lies in another question: prior to the last few days, did you ever hear of Mayhill Fowler ?
Advertisement
Comments (20)
Yes, She is a Clinton supporter and they went to the same school. It is all over the internet.
April 14, 2008 9:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
In this age of instant 'Gotcha', anyone running for office, or just daily routines, must understand that our society has become ultra redundant concerning recording devices, hidden or otherwise. Candidates must understand that turning off the mic or muting the phone are just not reliable. The only truly reliable way of not getting embarressed by an off hand comment or gesture is to simply not make them.
I think that few Obama supporters will switch sides because of this remark, because it is basicly true. But, I think the initial response is"I can kick my dog, but you better not". And I mean that as a metaphor. I don't have a dog.
The moral of this story is, if you have to pick your nose, make sure you do it in the dark.
April 14, 2008 9:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I think Mayhill is a good writer and reporter. And yes, I've been watching her for a few weeks now.
But bubbalewy is correct. There is no privacy in this project.
Now, all we really need to know is how much she donated, and who gave her the money. Imagine the uproar if the Clintons gave her the money to donate!
April 14, 2008 9:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Candidates should assume that every action will have a reaction.
Just ask Gary Hart.
April 14, 2008 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
I believe there is little doubt where Mayhill's allegiance lies. I hope there is a way to tie these donations to the Clinton coffer. Mayhill may be a decent wordsmith, however she is nothing more than a self-serving hack 'journalist'.
SHAME ON HER!
April 14, 2008 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
How about Prowler?
April 14, 2008 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Paranoid much? You seriously suspect that Hillary Clinton gave money to (obscure citizen journalist) Mayhill Fowler in an elaborate plot with malice aforethought, in which Fowler knew what Barack was going to say, etc.? Get this: Fowler gave the money to Obama a while ago, not just to "pretend" she's an Obama supporter after this story broke.
Don't shoot/smear the messenger. There were several hundred people at the event. It wasn't like she bugged his personal cell phone.
Get a grip, people.
April 14, 2008 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fowler donated money to Fred thompson, like a few hundred dollars early on.
Then she gave to Obama???? That's weird.
And yes, who has ever heard of her? Is she a plant???
Her writing was very obnoxious for a while now. She called Obama "cocky" in almost every post.
April 14, 2008 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't this the equivalent of using stuff that is supposed to be "off the record"???
I mean, if Obama granted her an interview it would be different. She snuck a tape recorder. Is that against journalistic ethics?
April 14, 2008 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hufpo's Jay Rosen has a hundred and one reasons why Fowler's "citizen journalism" was fair game at the fundraiser, including such information as "other people had cell phone cameras and recorders" and "people on the campaign knew she was blogging for OfftheBus", as if that is permission to record and distribute. But this isnt the important point: the important point is that she maintains that his comments sounded "off" to her, and yet she made no attempt to ask a follow-in question to get clarification from the candidate (even though he was answering questions at that very moment and she could have done), and she made no attempt to ask anyone else who was at that fundraiser what they thought of the comments. She had a "gotcha" quote and ran with it. What disgusts me the most is the graphic of a young male sighting down a rifle barrel that has been up all weekend long accompanying her uh... "report."
April 14, 2008 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Daily Kos has more:
Did Mayhill Fowler Intend To Damage Barack Obama?
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/4/14/82547/3512/64/495209
Who is Mayhill Fowler?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/4/12/15638/8512/891/494398
"Her husband has donated over $25K to the Clintons. "
April 14, 2008 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
How did the HuffPo vet this lady, and what were her credentials to get entrusted to cover Obama?
April 14, 2008 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
She's an obvious Clinton supporter. She says as much on her junehill blog. Her husband gave 25k to Clinton. She donated to Fred Thompson but Huffpo claims she's a "ardent Obama supporter"? GTFOH
She's a shill. Every post I've read from her was an attack on Obama.
April 14, 2008 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/04/13/BA161046G7.DTL
It was $1000 to get into Obama's elitist/special interest fundraiser.
"There's a very basic (fundraiser) rule - you don't let press in, and anyone with an interest in reporting shouldn't get in," said the source."
Now could that be becasue in public he says one thing and in private with big bucks donors he says another.
Just another politician and a bad one at that.
This guy needs to go back to politics 101.
April 14, 2008 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
$1K is elitist?
What do you call last year's Clinton fundraiser out here in LA? Actually, there were two. One was $2500 to get into and the other was $5K.
April 15, 2008 2:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think the issue is simply Mayhill F's identity or ethics, though the sneakiness here certainly strains the edges of any proper behavior by an actual journalist, proving that she is not worthy of that title.
What is more worrisome in this episode, and many others like it sure to come in the future, is the blurring of speaking-contexts that is distorting our national life, perhaps inevitably in the Youtube instant commmunication age. All natural speakers are accustomed to being able to take for granted certain things about the context they are speaking in, and the people they are talking to. They can have very decent motives that are not directly expressed in one context as opposed to another. In this case, Senator Obama apparently thought he was answering a question in supportive context, where people understood that he cares deeply about ordinary Americans. He certainly was not giving a speech for a mass audience, and he naturally referred to small town Pennsylvanians as if they were not there, because they were not. But snippets were stolen from the SF context and blared to another, where the meaning is bound to be distorted by the literal sentences clipped out of context.
He, and all politicians, can only conclude from this sort of thing that they cannot ever engage really naturally, cannot presume they are speaking to certain people in a taken-for-granted context. Political speech can only become more formulaic and stilted as a result, more stripped of any sense of back and forth with actual interlocutors. And it is already way too much that way.
If similar things were done in any other politicians' fundraisers, you would get the same mismatches and artificial bases for outrage. And the ironic thing is that Obama does many FEWER of these insider parties than the Clintons or McCain do.
The Clintons have long made exactly these kinds of remarks in insider settings -- and they will provide just as much fodder for the Republicans if they get her nominated. This is the kind of trick that anyone can play and political enemies always will. That this sort of thing has previously been done unfairly to the Clintons makes it all the more unseemly that they are doing it to a fellow Democrat now. Leave it to McCain.
Meanwhile, HuffPost ought to think whether this sort of thing really should be furthered by people who claim to care about the quality of public discourse in America.
None of this is to gainsay the useful lesson for Barack Obama. Henceforth, even for a sentence or two, he can never assume he is talking to anyone other than the whole world at once! Better to learn now.
April 14, 2008 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
**Jay Rosen is a goddamned liar. Maybelle is anything but a citizen journalist and Obama supporter, and he knows it. I think they're trying a little experiment. Trying to shape public opinion in support of Hillary. Rosen's quite sure we're brain-dead.
April 14, 2008 6:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jay Rosen is indeed a lying sack of shit.
His response is the typical shit eating grin of the unapologetic media slimeball.
Excuse my french.
April 14, 2008 6:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
AKA Junehill, an anti-Obama, pro-Clinton blogger:
http://junehill.blogspot.com/
April 14, 2008 7:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mayhill Fowler is the 'unless something turns up' snoop that Hillary was talking about weeks ago. It seems her job was indeed to spy and shadow until she indeed turned something up.
As others have said, Hillary would put on a white sheet and burn a cross on Bob Johnson's lawn if it got her into the White House.
April 14, 2008 11:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment